I've seen tonnes of posts on a few forums, including this one, claiming that R1b spread from the Eastern European steppe, or even nearby, into Western and Central Europe. But I've never seen any evidence for this. Not one shred.

So I thought I'd start a thread where we can compile such evidence, if it exists. And I'm talking about hard evidence like ancient DNA.

Indeed, I'll ask that STR diversity of R1b clades not be mentioned in this thread, as it obviously doesn't qualify (see the Busby et al. paper for more details why STR diversity is not a reliable means of inferring the origins of Y-DNA haplogroups).

I think R1b originated in the Fertile Crescent. I also think it spread into Europe mostly during the Neolithic via North Africa, Mediterranean maritime routes and the Balkans.

Moreover, the bulk of Western and Central European R1b probably comes from a few in situ expansions during the late Neolithic and metal ages.

But the fact that older clades and higher STR diversity are found in Eastern and especially Southeastern Europe is a massive red herring, because this is due to the isolation-by-distance effect. In other words, because Southeastern Europe is closer to Anatolia than Western Europe, it received migrants with all sorts of R1b clades well into historic times, but these lineages were not ancestral to those in Western and Central Europe.

Many of you guys show a lot of passion when it comes to this topic, but it seems to me that all of the energy you're spending on trying to tie R1b to Eastern Europe and the earliest Indo-Europeans is going to waste. Make no mistake, R1b was already in Western Europe before the early Indo-Europeans. The only thing left to do is to find the right Neolithic remains to test. How about the Iberomaurusians?

I think R1b originated in the Fertile Crescent. I also think it spread into Europe mostly during the Neolithic via North Africa, Mediterranean maritime routes and the Balkans.

Moreover, the bulk of Western and Central European R1b probably comes from a few in situ expansions during the late Neolithic and metal ages.

But the fact that older clades and higher STR diversity are found in Eastern and especially Southeastern Europe is a massive red herring, because this is due to the isolation-by-distance effect. In other words, because Southeastern Europe is closer to Anatolia than Western Europe, it received migrants with all sorts of R1b clades well into historic times, but these lineages were not ancestral to those in Western and Central Europe.

Many of you guys show a lot of passion when it comes to this topic, but it seems to me that all of the energy you're spending on trying to tie R1b to Eastern Europe and the earliest Indo-Europeans is going to waste. Make no mistake, R1b was already in Western Europe before the early Indo-Europeans. The only thing left to do is to find the right Neolithic remains to test. How about the Iberomaurusians?

But enough about what I think. Let's get back on topic...

Before I post, let me just be on the record as saying that I have very little faith in the R1b from the steppe theory. I don't think it is impossible, but I don't think it is highly likely. This is of course contrary to the R1a/Steppe/PIE link, which I think at this point is indisputable.

Now, as far as your post goes - it seems a little odd that you ask for absolute evidence for an R1b/steppe link when clearly you know that so few of the dozens of Copper Age cultures have been tested for ancient DNA.

Also, isn't it a little absurd to "demand" evidence for tying R1b to the steppe and offer anything but evidence for your pet R1b theory?

Also, isn't it a little absurd to "demand" evidence for tying R1b to the steppe and offer anything but evidence for your pet R1b theory?

I was asked for my opinion so I gave it, even though the post was somewhat off topic as a result, because, as you correctly point out, this thread is meant to be only about the hard facts.

And I'm not only asking for ancient DNA evidence, but all hard evidence, whatever that might be. The only stipulation is that the person offering it should provide a reason why they think the evidence they're offering is indeed solid, and not mention STR diversity, which I've already crossed off due to its lack of reliability in this context.

Excellent choice. Now can you be more specific where in Levant you feel R-M269 originated from, and why, without using str's?

Sadly no, because I don't have any evidence tying the basal clades of M269 to any specific part of the Near East. So if I were to speculate yet again, I'd be going off topic.

However, I'd like to reiterate again that as far as I know, there's a complete lack of evidence of M269 as a marker of Copper and Bronze Age dispersals from the western steppe. Not a shred.

Well then it cuts both ways, because we really do not even know what the Kromsdorf samples in terms of specific snp identity? I may be mistaken but the Levant R1b ideas I have seen were reproduced using 9 str variance, the vary same str's that you find useless.

Well then it cuts both ways, because we really do not even know what the Kromsdorf samples in terms of specific snp identity?

Well, there's ancient M269 from a Central European culture with strong ties to the Atlantic Coast (Bell Beakers from Kromsdrof), and in fact from the Atlantic (Canary Islands), but none from any of the eastern kurgans tested to date, nor from any cultures with ties to Eastern Europe (like the Corded Ware).

Also, there's plenty of M269 in the Near East and around the Mediterrenan, but very little in Eastern Europe past present-day Central Poland.

So just a simple comparison like this should tell us straight away that the Eastern European steppe is not much of a contender for M269 origins or even any major dispersals.

Well then it cuts both ways, because we really do not even know what the Kromsdorf samples in terms of specific snp identity?

Well, there's ancient M269 from a Central European culture with strong ties to the Atlantic Coast (Bell Beakers from Kromsdrof), and in fact from the Atlantic (Canary Islands), but none from any of the eastern kurgans tested to date, nor from any cultures with ties to Eastern Europe (like the Corded Ware).

Also, there's plenty of M269 in the Near East and around the Mediterrenan, but very little in Eastern Europe past present-day Central Poland.

So just a simple comparison like this should tell us straight away that the Eastern European steppe is not much of a contender for M269 origins or even any major dispersals.

Remember you have to be consistent. You have still not shown any ancient physical proof[ancient snp results] of your claim that r-m269 originated in whatever area of Levant of your choosing;until just recently we did not have any tangible proof R-m269 until Kromsdorf, so who is to say what results will be found in the future. In fact the same logic can be equally applied to another broad based European snp, namely r-m429 with the bulk of it's distribution not in Europe but in Levant and Africa, and yet everyone agrees and does not question that it has been in Europe for x amount of years longer than r-m269 based on theoretical nodes/branches[IJ] and theoretical mutation rates of str's.

How about going one step back and in snp's to where you think R1a and R1b actually split M173 into 343 and 420 do you think this also happened in Levant?

Remember you have to be consistent. You have still not shown any ancient physical proof[ancient snp results] of your claim that r-m269 originated in whatever area of Levant of your choosing;until just recently we did not have any tangible proof R-m269 until Kromsdorf, so who is to say what results will be found in the future. In fact the same logic can be equally applied to another broad based European snp, namely r-m429 with the bulk of it's distribution not in Europe but in Levant and Africa, and yet everyone agrees and does not question that it has been in Europe for x amount of years longer than r-m269 based on theoretical nodes/branches[IJ] and theoretical mutation rates of str's.

How about going one step back and in snp's to where you think R1a and R1b actually split M173 into 343 and 420 do you think this also happened in Levant?

I don't believe I've shown any inconsistency.

There's simply no evidence of R1b expanding from the steppe, but based on ancient DNA results to date, and current distributions of basal M269 clades, there are very strong hints of an origin somewhere in the Near East, and then dispersals via southern routes, including via the Mediterranean and North Africa, to Western Europe.

The ancient DNA results positive for M269 are very few indeed, but they can't be viewed in isolation from the 100% negative results from the steppes, nor from the aforementioned current distributions of basal clades of M269, and even current frequency peaks in all M269 clades.

Simply, there's no argument for steppe origins and/or expansions of M269. Not even a minor hint of such a thing.

Remember you have to be consistent. You have still not shown any ancient physical proof[ancient snp results] of your claim that r-m269 originated in whatever area of Levant of your choosing;until just recently we did not have any tangible proof R-m269 until Kromsdorf, so who is to say what results will be found in the future. In fact the same logic can be equally applied to another broad based European snp, namely r-m429 with the bulk of it's distribution not in Europe but in Levant and Africa, and yet everyone agrees and does not question that it has been in Europe for x amount of years longer than r-m269 based on theoretical nodes/branches[IJ] and theoretical mutation rates of str's.

How about going one step back and in snp's to where you think R1a and R1b actually split M173 into 343 and 420 do you think this also happened in Levant?

I don't believe I've shown any inconsistency.

There's simply no evidence of R1b expanding from the steppe, but based on ancient DNA results to date, and current distributions of basal M269 clades, there are very strong hints of an origin somewhere in the Near East, and then dispersals via southern routes, including via the Mediterranean and North Africa, to Western Europe.

The ancient DNA results positive for M269 are very few indeed, but they can't be viewed in isolation from the 100% negative results from the steppes, nor from the aforementioned current distributions of basal clades of M269, and even current frequency peaks in all M269 clades.

Simply, there's no argument for steppe origins and/or expansions of M269. Not even a minor hint of such a thing.

You still have not proven your theory of a Levant origin of R-M269; location of your choosing.

"The Levant includes most of modern Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Palestinian Authority, Cyprus, Turkey's Hatay Province and some regions of Iraq or the Sinai Peninsula."

Up until last year, there was also 100% negative results from Europe of any results of R-M269, and yet we know now that it does exist in Germany with the Kromsdorf find. In 2004 we also had 100% no evidence of any older existence of M420 in Europe until 2005 with the Eulau find, which is a few kilometers from Kromsdorf. So in the span of 8 years we have two finds relatively close in age and distance both related to branches of m173. What makes you confident that this pattern will not be repeated other than speculation?

What makes you confident that this pattern will not be repeated other than speculation?

Because it would be a complete turnaround from what we've seen to date, and wouldn't match the distribution and frequencies of M269 clades across West Eurasia. Sure, miracles do happen, but I think it's more useful to be pragmatic.

And I'm not particularly interested in proving the origins of M269 in the Near East, simply because I don't have much interest in M269. But the fact that many people are trying to force its presence in the ancient cultures of Eastern Europe does intrigue me, although I'm starting to think this has more to do with some sort of mass hallucination than any objective assessment of the relevant facts.

What makes you confident that this pattern will not be repeated other than speculation?

Because it would be a complete turnaround from what we've seen to date, and wouldn't match the distribution and frequencies of M269 clades across West Eurasia. Sure, miracles do happen, but I think it's more useful to be pragmatic.

And I'm not particularly interested in proving the origins of M269 in the Near East, simply because I don't have much interest in M269. But the fact that many people are trying to force its presence in the ancient cultures of Eastern Europe does intrigue me, although I'm starting to think this has more to do with some sort of mass hallucination than any objective assessment of the relevant facts.

I take a different approach. I don't have a particular Middle Eastern fetish as to the origins of the R clades and there subsequent dispersal,that is why I give you the snp of your choosing and it's relevant dispersal in the R1b family ; so I'm open to all scientifically proven results[Eulau and Kromsdorf] past, present and future . So lets just agree to politely disagree with each others views and wait for more results to be accumulated.

I think R1b originated in the Fertile Crescent. I also think it spread into Europe mostly during the Neolithic via North Africa, Mediterranean maritime routes and the Balkans.

Moreover, the bulk of Western and Central European R1b probably comes from a few in situ expansions during the late Neolithic and metal ages.

But the fact that older clades and higher STR diversity are found in Eastern and especially Southeastern Europe is a massive red herring, because this is due to the isolation-by-distance effect. In other words, because Southeastern Europe is closer to Anatolia than Western Europe, it received migrants with all sorts of R1b clades well into historic times, but these lineages were not ancestral to those in Western and Central Europe.

Many of you guys show a lot of passion when it comes to this topic, but it seems to me that all of the energy you're spending on trying to tie R1b to Eastern Europe and the earliest Indo-Europeans is going to waste. Make no mistake, R1b was already in Western Europe before the early Indo-Europeans. The only thing left to do is to find the right Neolithic remains to test. How about the Iberomaurusians?

But enough about what I think. Let's get back on topic...

This is certainly not proof and maybe not even on topic but there are references to vessels (not ships per se) that could have had sails and traveled the waters 10,000 years ago which would put them in the neolithic period.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShipThe first known vessels date back to the Neolithic Period, about 10,000 years ago, but could not be described as ships. The first navigators began to use animal skins or woven fabrics as sails. Affixed to the top of a pole set upright in a boat, these sails gave early ships range.

And they would not have to travel strictly by land:

from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248485800476The Iberomaurusians did not originate in the Near East nor the Egyptian Sudan. Neither did they come from Spain via the Strait of Gibraltar. They are probably Italian Epigravettians, who landed in Tunisia 24,000 years ago. From there, they spread towards the west (Morocco) and the east (the Egyptian Sudan), taking the place of the Aterian aborigines. Their ancestors were Aterians who, ca 50,000 years ago, possibly also making use of a marine regression, had reached the northern shores of the Mediterranean and had gradually replaced the original Neanderthal population of that area.